Unless the demand is crazy, this will be the last in this series for a few days. You can watch all episodes here: Factions Compared: ua-cam.com/play/PLPcRSJDFb1lmxDHjXMIEqQ_D_2EWBV9Lv.html
EckhartsLadder Could you add in the Imperial Navy from Warhammer 40K? If you need help with that you can ask Arch Warhammer, he knows a lot about the universe
Interesting note regarding Mass Effect and Systems Alliance, Carriers were actually a human invention, none of the Citadel races used them, Humans were first as their way to go around the limits Council put on dreadnoughts :) It's almost like a dreadnought (similar size) without the guns but with more hangars compared to ships used by other races in the Milky Way :)
Sidewinder that's quite true. The carriers were also their loophole. Carriers are as big, If not bigger than dreadnoughts. And cruisers are only a few hundred meters shorter than a dreadnought
Each race had different limits, with the Council members being allowed the most, according to in-game Codex and ME wiki, in 2183 so that's during ME1 Turians had 37, Asari 21, Salarians 16 and Humans had 6 with 7th in construction. 2 years later in 2185 Turians added 2 more to their fleet, Asari lost one, Salarians still had 16 and Humans built 2 with another one being finished in 2186. That same year Volus had just completed their first and only dreadnought :) That actualy makes sense, considering that Turians have assumed the role o intra-galactic police :) Edit: Here's the details on the Treaty limiting these: masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Treaty_of_Farixen
ArchmageTech, the Citadel had very strict laws about militarization, especially with regards to dreadnoughts. Each race had a share of the total military, and was expected to create that many ships.
But the brooms don't have guns mounted on them like the speeder bikes. *Pew pew pew! Trade off for flight and the ability to avoid crap for shooting your way through stuff by... FORCE haha
Who would win? A military issued recon vehicle, with technology made from a vast universe and past Empires -or- Some magic stick made with 16 century technology
I agree with the ranking but I don’t think you should be knocking UNSC or Covenant for not having (edit) as many fighters as fighters are fairly useless in universe (the only use being able to shoot into open spots on a shield while ships are using weapons). If you are going to knock them for that then you would need to dock points from Star Wars for having manned guns etc. (Edit) I’m going to explain why fighters are useless in Halo. In Halo space combat is closer to realism than most universe this means the ships are doing battle at distances far over 100,000 miles away.(cutscenes in game just like game play are not tier 1 canon) Also if you take real physics into account why would you ever use a fighter over a bunch of missiles? Missiles will be faster more accurate better at evading and you can have way more of them and way larger ones if you don’t also have to spend to have a fighter carry them. This leads to fighters having only a few roles: 1 they work as mobile point defense platforms shooting down missiles or other fighters 2 they can fire into gaps in the shield that are created when main ships weapons fire but this is rare as they will likely get shot down by point defenses. (You actually see this in Halo 2 while Chief is doing his free fall the CAS uses its beam on a cruiser which means it has no shields in that area leading to a air strike blowing open the path for chief.) Basically fighters are worse versions of missiles with their only redeeming quality being as mobile gun platforms. Edited so my meaning is clearer
dreman999 he’s not saying they are useless. Fighters still have a use in orbital defense and support of ground forces, but in the halo universe fighters do not dictate naval battles. They do not have the weapons to really damage capital ships and survive against the effective point Defense Systems halo ships have. So in the halo universe fighters are useless in fighting NAVAL battles. Knocking them for only having 2 Multirole types is (like the other fine gentleman said) like knocking Star Wars for using manned guns
Both universe represents the apex of human achievements and tenacity, adaptability and strength. As a fan of Halo, I respect a lot the System Alliance. They look two sides of a mirror.
I would guess that the covenant and UNSC get a bit of an advantage, assuming this is following along lines of best composition rather than raw power. Thanks to things like the fleet battles tabletop games, those factions have a very diverse array of generalist and specialist craft.
your assertion that the lack of "dreadnought" type ships in UNSC battlegroups is a weakness is something i find incorrect for 2 reasons. 1 the weapons of UNSC ships are spine mounted so in order to fire at a target you need to point the entire ship at it. a larger ship would make this more difficult and the resources required to build it would mean less other ships in the fleet which would limit the fleets ability to target multiple foes. 2 UNSC carriers are not like todays carriers. UNSC command carriers are armed to the teeth and there huge size and thick hull makes them incredibly durable. why build a dreadnought when you can build a carrier that fills the same role plus carry strike craft.
I wouldn't say battleships would be useless if you had naval combat. They would, however, be inefficient. And the reasoning would be the same as with Halo. Why build a battleship (which costs A LOT by the way) that while extremely devastating in certain situations, could easily be replaced by 8 or 10 if not more frigates/destroyers. Not to mention smaller ships also provide target saturation. You might lose 5 frigates/destroyers and it would still not be as bad as losing a battleship.
+Kuduka -Dakata- Battleships today aren't used because of the inefficiency of making them. It's the fact that the guns are just useless the gun range is very short when compared to a missile. Why make a battleship that pretty much has to get into melee range when you can put missiles on a destroyer that can fire at targets it can't see, correct its course and carry the same or more bomb load? Battleships would be more useful in space because line of sight wouldn't matter and it could travel an infinite distance.
Well looks like my comment didn't post so here we go again. Battleships as I wrote can be extremely devastating, particularly if they get in close range of other ships. Modern warships aren't equiped to deal with warships as heavily armored as a battleship. They would be almost completely useless. You need bunker buster missiles to penetrate the armor of a WWII battleship. The reason we don't build battleships is because it wouldn't justify the costs. A carrier is cheaper to build and can project force in a much bigger range. Modern warfare focuses on stealth and shooting the enemy before they can see you as far as naval warfare is concerned. A battleship simply doesn't fit modern combat doctrine. If you park a battleship off the coast of NY for example with sufficient anti sub cover you will pretty much blockade the place with absolutely no way for anyone break through. Standard anti-ship missiles would be useless, low calliber guns would be useless. Any modern warship that gets in range would be blown up in seconds. There are uses just noone to actually use it against so no point in building one.
+Kuduka -Dakata- you do know that the punic class super carriers were basically battleships they had two super macs and were very effective at fighting covenant ships the other carriers were for carrying fighters
heresyposting is heretic. Whoops. i placed my cup on the exterminatus button number Q. a good inquisitorial chair can launch an exterminatus by just sitting
But they've been putting out some naff shit too. For every House of Cards and Breaking Bad there's a Coin Heist or a Bright or a Coin Heist or a Dear White People or a Coin Heist or a Mascots or a Coin Heist. It's not really fair to judge Netflix by it's best exclusively because as movies like Coin Heist prove, they are more than capable of making some damn bad flops.
Also dreads can't take shots from reapers they get destroyed in 1 shot (427kilotons) unsc high kilotons - teratons (mid end single digit megatons) Covenant low megatons- teratons (mid end double to triple didgit megatons) Forerunners teratons- exotons (based on the lowest possible calcs from the keyship) Wh40k kilotons- petatons (not counting necrons)(mid end gigatons) Starwars sub kilogram- low kilotons and manually aimed guns (Disney cannon) (mid end single diget kilotons) Yes the reapers are pansies that would die to almost anyone else edit: credit to SB for the calcs
I'm not sure why relying on a certain class of ship is a bad thing to ya, considering said ships are powerful as hell and usually are accompanied by carriers and frigates anyways, not to mention you can't knock a navy because they don't rely on fighters as much
@RaPtorteAm No doctrine is invincible, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Mobile warfare is said to be the best kind of warfare, except it doesn't work against guerrilla warfare. Massing all your ships around one big ship isn't fool proof as you can just pick off the smaller ships or focus down on the heavy ship and finish off the smaller vessels. It is not a good idea to base your doctrine completely on relying on one heavy ship to deal the damage while the smaller ships just serve to support it, there should be multiple heavy ships in a fleet, in case one of them gets destroyed. Still not as flawed as having only one ship with just some fighters and no bombers in a fleet.
Judge: thank you, defense council. Prosecution are you ready to present your case? Prosecution: yes your honour. If it pleases the court I would like to present the cylon navy of the second war as exhibit A
I personally think the covenant has the best navy, I love there designs, and if they have the potential to be the strongest sci-fi faction if they could have the necessary territory and recourses and could use the huragock, they could even get even more advanced than what they actually are.
We're not talking about advancements tho, the video is about Naval doctrines and tactics. The Covenant are advanced, yes. But their doctrine, tactics, and strategies are primitive even compared to UNSC. The Covenant relies on the idea of "Bigger fleets, Bigger ships, bigger win" which led to them being constantly outmaneuvered by UNSC. The UNSC infinity might also be big, but it's very flexible, it's a battleship, but also a carrier, massive transport, a factory.
In my apinion I think that the Covenant should have been placed higher on the list, because while the Covenant didn't have a huge variety of ships, the ships that they did have were pretty strong, and also the Covenant did have more than just CCS class cruisers, carriers, and super carriers. For example in Halo Wars 1 in one of the mission cut scenes you could see the UNSC Spirit of Fire go up against a Covenant Destroy, and both ships ended up colliding, and while the Spirit of Fire took considerable damage to the side of it's hull, the Covenant destroyer didn't take much damage from the collision, showing that it had a considerably strong hull and shields, and also in Halo Reach in the mission "Long Night of Solace" you could see the UNSC Savana, a Paris class frigate, go up against a Covenant SDV class heavy corvette, and get destroyed without the corvette taking much damage.
Eckhart. Something I think you missed with the UNSC fleet is that building a massive front line battleship would be almost pointless against an enemy (The Covenant) that could potentially destroy it in a single shot. Using several smaller ships using the same amount of resources makes far more sense so that it makes it far more difficult for an enemy to engage. Now this is just looking at the UNSC during the war with the Covenant while their vessels were not using shields. Looking at post war UNSC while using shields, we do see an increase in the size and power of the UNSC vessels, like the Infinity. Considering the fleet composition for the purpose it was needed for, the UNSC could possibly take the top spot from the Systems Alliance. Just thought this was a very important point that you seemed to have missed in your video but your content is amazing. I found you about a month ago but have already watched almost everything on your channel. Keep up the good work!
Fun fact, the image used of the unsc ship at 4:10 is actually of the freelancer ship mother of invention from the halo based series, Red vs Blue and that is a scene from it.
The one thing that’s different than all is that the Covenant actually had ships with literal artificial hunting reserves on them. When the Covenant wasn’t at war they could go into the hunting reserves to hone their battle skills and also get fresh food. None of the other factions have things like this. In my opinion this would be a huge advantage for the Covenant.
You knock the UNSC for not having very many/any extremely large ships, but spreading your resources over a larger number of ships means that the UNSC has more survivability than any star wars faction as the number of targets massively increases and with there smaller size they are more difficult targets making them superior to the massive targets that other factions have. (you also have to keep in mind that even though they don't have any large cannon type weapons they still most likely have just as much power as one of those but spread among the fleet increasing the individual power of each ship which is the safer option as losing one ship doesn't lose you the battle)
I've been working on a sci-fi universe where my protagonist faction has a good navy and a bad navy at the same time. The major ship types they have are frigates, which are used to screen starfighters and cover the battleships and carriers from enemy fire; destroyers, which are fast, nimble ships that are used to harass, assault, or even destroy enemy capital ships; carriers, which, for this faction, have colossal capacities, with some rare few carrying as many as 1000 vehicles; and battleships, the mainline capital ships used for assault, both against orbital positions and against planets. Additionally, the carriers do have heavy guns, so they can sit in the back and blast away at the enemy ships from behind the safety of the wall of frigates while deploying their starfighters. Based on your previous analyses, this would be a fairly good setup. Where this all falls short is with the starfighters. This faction has air/space superiority fighters, multirole fighters, interceptors, ground attackers, and support gunships, but they have no dedicated bombers. While that is an effective setup for the starfighters in most roles, it forces the capital ships to pick up the slack against enemy capital ships and fortified ground positions, the latter of which can hinder the army's progression due to the lack of support.
Until the Navy squandered half its budget on the Infinity , but yeah, the UNSC followed its doctrine as much as possible with the number and technology they had at hand
The Infinity was the UNSC's Death Star. But unlike the Death Star or the Empire, UNSC did not have close to the technology or resource needed to build or maintain such a ship. Plus they were at war. An active, destructive war. And instead of using its budgets in production of more ships, better ships. ONI basically took its budget and build a luxury lifeboat incase they lose Earth.
RaPtorteAm However in the end, it pays off. Being literally the only ship that can penetrate the Mantles Approach and representing the might of Humanity's best scientific engineering. Though it was vastly costly, it was a big factor in assisting Chief in stopping the Didact from possibly composing the entire Human species.
United Federation of Planets, Klingon Empire, Cardassion Union, and Romulan Empire. A navy comparison. I dont know if you are that into Star Trek but i think it would be cool to see some Trek stuff on the channel. And on the topic of Star Trek. Galactic Verses. ( United Star Trek galaxy, (Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta Quadrant.) Vs Star Wars, Say maybe during the clone wars. Love your content, keep it up.
Why First Order? They were, while quite mighty in terms of raw firepower, in the end ended up losing The Supremacy and 8 Resurgence class Battleships for just The Raddus going into hyperspace and slamming into The Supremacy. Pretty good trade for the resistance if only counting raw tonnage
No point lucrehulk will get crushed it has 24 quad tubolaser the resurgent has 1500 turbolasers the 1500 droid fighters would be a pain in the butt thought... however unlike imperial ships the resurgent has a dedicated point defense system and shielded star fighters while droid fighters are unshielded the resurgent might get damaged but not enough to be destroyed and the lecrehulk will get vapourised by the resurgent' s overwhelming firepower
I would like a mass effect lore video as well as a comparison of some of the special forces units (like Spartans, odst, Republic Commandos, ARC Troopers,...ect)
Captain Crary I wouldn't say Keyes, replace him with Admiral Cole (If you don't know who he is, I would suggest reading some fluff surrounding him, awesome man with great stories), especially since Cole consistently won outnumbered and outgunned Edit: Replace the Arbiter with the legendary 'Jar Wattinree, as much as I love the Arbiter, I think 'Jar Wattinree outclasses him.
covenant were considered the killers in space, usually destroying the unsc, they had bigger ships ,better weapons, and were ruled ship by ship (or captain by captain) while unsc followed a command structure that could easily be broken. also, covenant ships had there bridges in the center of the ship offering protection instead of at the front of unsc the covenant are the better fleet
That's just because the UNSC was obsessed with dishing out MAC rounds during the Covenant War. But that's excusable because UNSC fighters during the war was less useful than, but Carriers should focus on bringing fighters/troops into battle. UNSC ships suffer from many design problems with other sci-fi spaceships: It's a battlestar, warships that carry a big gun, carry fighters, and carry troops. Instead of different variations with different specialized functions.
Technically UNSC heavy carriers are Battleships with hangars. :D Also if the hangars were removed to make it a true battleship, what would do you fill that space up with ? (obviously armor where necessary) They don't have shields (during the war) so you can't really put more power generation to boost that. Even if you put more power generation to boost MAC recharge rate, UNSC fleet combat is all about firing the MACs in large volleys so the ship would just be sitting there waiting for everyone else to recharge their MACs. Battleships would be extremely effective in BSG though.
Owen Yin Yes, I agree that the UNSC tried to make the best of their fleet with such limited resource and underwhelming technology. The problem is the lack of specialization between certain warship decrease the overall effectiveness of the Fleet. If your frigate is carrying scorpions, that means you're not carrying enough Archer missiles; if your Carrier is armed with a MAC that means you're not supplying enough Longswords; if your mega-super-expensive warship has a random biodome for no reason whatsoever that means you're not being efficient.
There is quite a bit of specialisation in the UNSC fleet actually. You have frigates which double as troop transports. Then you have destroyers which are purely for ship to ship combat. Also UNSC ships carry a ton of missiles. If you check the older frigate designs, that bottom section under the engines is actually the part dedicated to troops. You have to remember that Infinity might be expected to be on missions for many months if not years. (when it was originally being built it was supposed to be their last hope to ensure humanity's survival if Earth fell) Having a place for people to go and just forget about all the fighting and just relax if even for a little bit is important. You need the crew in top shape after all. Especially with the enemies regular troops have to face. Pretty much all covenant species have some phisical trait thats superior to regular humans. Hell, even the grunts are actually pretty tough phisically, and not all that short. Not to mention the way battles were fought during the war, MAC guns were a lot more important than fighters. And the heavy carriers were literally battleships with hangars. They were built with the idea that they'd have to fight capital ships.
Kuduka -Dakata- Problem is UNSC frigates are mass produced in numbers so they could be effectively used against larger and more advance Covenant counterparts. If you frigate doctrine is to dish out damage you don't need space for surface combat vehicles. A Battlestar is a trope of warships that does everything. Almost every UNSC warship is a Battlestar. Paris-class frigates should be the standard for UNSC frigates, not the exception. It's the same reason why modern day DDG does not carry humvees, or why CVNs does not have vertical launch systems. By investing in unnecessary space not suited for the ship, you're efficiently(and ironically) building a warship-of-none. Now frigates can't effectively bring many troops into surface because it can only carry so many troops, and it can't combat ships because they're evacuating few troops they've to send to suicide. If the UNSC wanted MACs they should build them on their cruisers or their destroyers(if they're effective at all). If you're going to build a starship is that used to carry fighters, then make it carry fighters. A Punic-class carrier own could carry 24 fighters if they would take out that MAC they could effectively bring more Longswords. And if longswords are not as effective, then don't build those carriers at all.
I believe you put the covenant in the wrong place because this reason. A universal ship is much better than a specialized ship because if you have a ship that can fulfill any role than that is a much better designed ship. The CCS battlecrusier can act as a brawler, a destroyer, a carrier and a supply ship that can carry enough cargo to fund a entire campaign. So if this ship can fulfil these roles on it's own you don't need other ships, the CCS battlecrusier is much different to the star destroyer in the fact that it can be multi role and is a better designed. So I do believe the covenant should be higher up the scale do to the fact that the ship was a multi roled ship and could serve in a better tactical sense. But this is my opinion and I still liked the vid so keep up this seiers, really like.
The idea is that you have to make tradeoffs for a multirole design that you don't have to for specialized design. For instance, a ship having a carrier role will almost always be weaker and more vulnerable than one without fighters, making it a poorer battleship.
+Scythe Seven, so that means if I destroy all of your ships that are your acting fleet tenders and carriers I effectively destroy your fighter and bomber core and starve your fleet of supplies all right man you stick with that and I'll go attack you with my covie fleets of multipurpose vessels XD, oh not to mention the empire from star wars has those specialized ships you know the isd that has literally no point defense and next to no fighter support now that vs my republic ship with tons of fighters and point defense your on XD.
The whole point of specialized carriers is that they are vulnerable, but they stay protected behind the ISD-type ships, which are in turn protected by anti-fighter corvettes. Besides, specialized doesn't have to mean completely lacking flexibility. Taking away the ISD-I's pd weapons for more turbolasers was the Empire's dumbest possible mistakes. Multi role vessels are only necessary if the fleet has to be able to handle anything but doesn't expect superior enemy forces. With proper intelligence and planning, a specialized fleet will mop the floor with a generalist one any day. The role of a carrier is to deploy fighters and GTFO. Letting it be destroyed is incompetence.
+Scythe Seven, except that you don't let it get destroyed the enemy focuses attacks on it and what if I remove your corvettes by focusing on them then I have free range for bombers and fighters on your ships.
The point is that the corvettes won't be destroyed by the enemy fighters because they are specifically designed to take on enemy fighters and bombers. A multirole fleet can't carry as many fighters, output as much firepower, or take as much punishment as a specialized fleet outside a surprise attack because the generalist ships are masters of none. There's a reason humans become scientists, farmers, and entrepreneurs, but not renaissance men, and that's because the scope of human knowledge is greater than any one person. The same is true with spaceships-the scope of design knowledge is greater than any one. Any ship equipped to carry fighters and bombers has necessarily given itself a massive weak point to accommodate them. Any space taken up by armor can't be used for hangars or weapons it other subsystems. A fleet of generalist ships denies the absolute fact that every design choice is a trade-off.
2:18 Better resource management? IDK about you, but the frigates the UNSC uses were the bulk of their navy, and they are usually depicted as disposable...but then again they did use them in way to stall for time against the Covenant
O you know when someone makes something like this, there will be a ton of fanboys screaming at each other about which universes navy is better. I’m for sure this will happen
Then you have idiots who just blatantly ignore the facts presented to them by fans of other universes and don’t provide any backing sources. Ahhhhhhh that’s how most debates go for sci-fi stuff
I also forgot. Then there’s the people who beg eckharts to do their match ups all the time like a little brother begging his dad to let him buy cod even though he’s not old enough. God eckharts fan base is half cancer, half good
First of all, the UNSC does have Saber (Dedicated Space Superiority Fighter), and Short-Sword (Dedicated Bombers) Next... pretty much most ships that are "Battleship size" in a space environment are going to have a certain amount of carrier capability...
I must say this.... Japan had Yamato-class - biggest guns, heavy hitting etc. etc. and.... it sunk being killed by... aircraft carrier bombers.... Dreadnought is not a solution for UNSC because it would cost a lot more than bunch of Paris-class or even Carriers... It would be a waste of resources to create ship of this class and loose it to Covenant - just to remind you: Covenant had more numerous fleet and technical advantage. Infinity was planned as escape and colonization ship which would be sent into far region of Galaxy to save last of humanity - it was not a warship. So lack of dreadnoughts is to be understood - UNSC couldn't afford to throw away resources when loosing war with Covenant. As for Covenant, they had heavy battleships/carriers like CSO and loss of each one in battle was substantial loss to their fleets.
The UNSC didn't have capital ships because they would get torn apart by the covenant. They would just be massive targets. They focused on smaller ships because they were faster, more maneuverable, and harder to hit, which was pretty much their only way to get an edge on the larger, more well armed covenant warships.
Unicron vs Deathstar (your choice of first or second) - Transformers VS Star Wars Unicron VS Five Reapers - Transformers VS Mass Effect Astartes Assault Squad VS Brutes - Warhammer 40K VS Halo Imperial Guard Stormtroopers VS Death Troopers - Warhammer 40K VS Halo A good video, but we see more of a look at your preferences on ship design and military doctrine than anything else. Granted if I really wanted to dispute this I'd make my own video. Besides, you're much more into Halo and Mass Effect than me so I can trust you to know what you're talking about. That being said, here's hoping you consider some of these suggested VS videos, I gotta get around to joining the discord server at some point.
Just gonna note that the SA may be good - incredible, even - in terms of in-universe design but lone escort-type ships from anyone else on this list could solo them. 32 kilotons per shot is considered devastating firepower for Mass Effect, and the 450 kilotons of a capital Reaper’s gun an instant kill, and Disney Star Wars deals in tens of megatons, the UNSC and Covenant in tens of gigatons, and EU Star Wars in hundreds of gigatons. Don’t let Mass Effect fanboys foool you.
I think you misunderstood the UNSC's navy. See, according to the Halo literature I've read (I.E. Fall of Reach) Cruisers basically are the battleship/dreadnought ship of the UNSC navy. Their firepower is, to my understanding, roughly similar to that of a ME dreadnought, and they had always been the primary heavy-hitters of the UNSC navy. That was one of the things that really stood out to me when I was reading that stuff. I had expected such a role to be played by ships that weren't referred to as cruisers, but alas, the cruisers are it. At least, according to the old lore. God knows what 343 decided to do.
This is a very one sided view the first order is very powerful if you think about it they managed to build star killer base, the supremacy, hundreds or resurgent class star destroyers, amass a powerful ground force with their limited resources while factions like the unsc with so much resources and of that size can't even build a good all rounded ship with SHIELDS EVEN STAR WAS FIGHTERS HAVE SHIELDS UNSC SHIPS DIDNT HAVE SHIELDS TILL LATER IN THE WAR YOU FOOL
It depends on how you look at it. Prometheans from Halo 4 were always a few knights with a large number of crawlers that made up the bulk of their forces with the watchers as support. In Halo 5 there are less knights and more soldiers with the occasional officer who's not really an officer but more of an upgraded soldier. For Star Wars it gets tricky because you need to look at the faction. if it's the CIS then you have sheer numbers of B1 battle droids that are made to overwhelm the opponent. A B2 battle droid is much more effective with better weapons and armor but still not that smart. Droidekas have shields and heavy firepower which will be effective when properly used. There are also BX commando droids who are smarter, nimbler, faster, stronger and have vibroswords as well. We also can't forget that the real commanders were tactical droids who were incredibly smart. Magnaguards were also very resilient and even able to stand up against a jedi. But there are more different factions such as the sith empire and the eternal empire who used droids as well. If it's CIS droids vs Prometheans then in my opinion it mostly depends on the situation. If it's the Prometheans vs standard battle droids in let's say a close combat situation then they win. But if they're fighting the droids in a more open space and a mix of these droids then the CIS wins. Prometheans have quality but battle droids have quantity with the rare droid who actually has some quality.
What about the Harvesters from Independence Day? It would probably be every factions dream to have moon-sized warships with impenetrable energy shielding and countless other defenses at their fingertips.
Unless the spartan ambushes them, or just kills them with a sniper rifle... Jedi can't stop bullets,"slugthrowers" as they are called in SW are slower than modern firearms. Generation Tech did a great video explaining how to kill Jedi/Sith. Of the recommended ways using a slugthrower was rather high.
If you look at the halo: mythos you will see that the UNSC did have the Vindication class battleships, though I will say that battleships and dreadnoughts play a much smaller part in the UNSC navy than most starwars navies
No, only half of every civilization in the Mid-tier Sci-Fi category. Your own ships' best weapons, excluding Exterminatus, are only rated low petaton level. There is a race whose single basic warship can destroy star systems every seconds, and they are still in Mid-tier.
Man you forgot the mention shields the covernent were known to have almost unbeatable overshields on their crusiers, and the had pinpoint perfect slip space travel, they are almost unbeatable unless they were blown up from the inside.
no XD the forerunner and precursors could easily wipe the floor with any stargate faction as stargate isn't focused that much on the "we have more op bullshit than you" and the precursors from halo are stated to be older than the current universe and said to have come to this universe to create anything they wanted.
I love this series and have a suggestion for an army comparison video. I would love to see a comparison between the Imperial Guard (Cadian regiments), The UNSC Marine Corp/Army, The Clone Army (even though you already did them), and The Global Defense Initiative (GDI from C&C, specifically Tiberium Wars). Would appreciate some feedback to this idea. ^^
The First Order is easily the best navy of these nations. The designs of their ships are a brilliant combination of the Venator and the Imperial Star Destroyers that I commanded. They are a... efficient... navy that also has a competent officer corps. Unlike fools like Constantine that commanded in the Empire.
i would disagree, though the resurgent class battlecruisers are impressive by themselves, they lack the numbers nor the actual quality of fighters to be competent in the field of battle, they are also slow, and since they lack the necessary support ships, they still through the weakness of the Imperial class star destroyer, which is fighters. It also doesn't help that the bridge, despite being reinforced, will do nothing to prevent a dedicated penetration missile to punch through and explode within the ship. Though it makes up for this weakness through redundent command centers. Though this comparison isn't about the ship types itself, but the Navys, and i would argue that the UNSC has the far greater navy than the System's alliance. Simply put the Carriers are too few, despite their specialization in fighters, are inferior to such fighters such as the Broadswords and longswords in anything but speed. I also dislike the fact that the system's alliance ships rely too much on element zero, which makes powering and producing these ships far more costly. As this video fails to mention, the cost of Element zero goes up exponentially when building bigger and bigger ships, it is a structural weakness within mass effect ships. This is also why that they have such low quality hulls, because they depend too much upon their kinetic barriers, which to be honest, is significantly underpowered against any other kinetic based weapons. Their kinetic barriers would be next to useless against anything with energy based weapons such as the Empire or the UNSC Super carrier. I also dislike the fact that THis video @Eckhartsladder fails to actually also mention the battleships such as the Vindicator light battleship and the Strident Class heavy frigates. I also dislike the fact that it mislabels the UNSC infinity as a battlecruiser rather than a Supercarrier such as the Punic.
As long as we are only talking about fleet structure I totally agree with this assessment. When you bring tech into the equation I would put the covenent into the top spot with the systems alliance and the UNSC each falling one spot down.
here's an idea.... you have seen the movie "scout's guide to the zombie apocalypse "?... well how about scout's guide to a flood infestation?........ i mean how to arm ourselves in the best possible way to prevent us getting all tentacles growing out of our ears.... sounds good?
Is a larger ship a good thing? It makes it more complicated, requires more work to maintain, has a larger surface area to hit. I think you would want a ship that can be small as possible while still maintaining fire power
Larger ships in halo usually work when shields are concerned given that the bigger the ship means the bigger the reactor and the more shield emitters it can have.
The UNSC has a bomber, in the shortsword. It is only carried on carriers and assault ships. Longswords and sabers are carried on carriers, cruisers, and battleships and are multi-role fighters as you noted.
"makes most sense" Fucking finally. Battleships don't make a lot of sense, bigger ships are bigger targets, and more of a liability. And the covenants self sustained nature doesn't make alot of sense in the lore being that they have really good ftl- resupply should be easier.
You are right, but i don't think it's in any way practical to bring those support ships into combat as in an equal playing field they are as much as liability as they are a strength- you don't need to fight covenant cruisers if you can destroy their support craft or separate the support and auxiliary craft from the main battle group. Given that the fleet is designed with their existence in mind, you could thus constrict and control the actions of your opponent by crippling their support craft.
Eckhart, I would say that, at least in Halo's case, a *lot* of the way the different factions structure their fleet has to do with how we do it today, at sea in the late Cold War to current era. Why? First look goes to the UNSC. Pre-Covenant, there were not battleships/battlecruisers, and only one 'type' of cruiser (note; type of ship, not class of ship). They had carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and frigates as their main ships. Cruisers are an exceedingly rare type. That's true today as well, although that has more to due with the fact cruisers are very redundant in modern (western) navies ever since France & Italy stopped messing around with aviation cruisers (it's a long story). Regardless, the UNSC is roughly analogous to a late Cold War to current western navy (US, UK, France, Italy). Outside of independent ventures made up of Destroyers and Frigates, a carrier or carriers are typically the core of any type of naval battlegroup. Sometimes, though not always, they come with the ever-rare cruisers (most USN CBG/CSG's have one), and then the rest is made up by destroyers and frigates. Carriers are always the center of the battlegroup, they do little themselves but bring to bear the offensive/defensive power brought by their strike aircraft. Pretty similar from the UNSC to you modern NATO navies. Cruisers are rare because they're the largest, most powerful type of ship for surface combat. While for most navies cruisers are dead (their AA/Surface action role became redundant to that of DDG's), the USN is still hesitant to scrap all of the (really) old Ticonderoga-class cruisers because they have unparalleled firepower compared to anything else in the USN at the moment (just as cruisers in the UNSC have more raw firepower than any other ship type). In the case of the USN, it's because the Tico's have 128 VLS tubes versus the 90-96 VLS tubes on their modern Burke-class destroyers. Although there are no submarines to worry about in the Halo universe, Destroyers and Frigates still have somewhat similar roles to real life. Destroyers in Halo are the most focused on actually doing heavy fighting; they're best equipped for taking on other warships, and are larger and more powerful than Frigates. Frigates are more multirole platforms, smaller, cheaper, less deadly, but able to carry out patrols and operate fighters, they are more versatile and useful for the everyday missions of the UNSC. There's a similar divide in real life. The USN is hard to use in this case because they don't use frigates anymore, they just have their destroyers do everything... but as a general rule for most navies, destroyers are almost like capital ships in the way that Frigates might end up escorting them. Destroyers are geared towards front-line combat. They're bigger than Frigates and more heavily armed, packing more VLS tubes and defensive measures. They're typical multirole (unless you're the UK, in which case the Type 45's are purely AAW focused), but generally are geared towards AAW and ASu; taking down enemy aircraft and missiles, and then dishing out the damage to the enemy fleet with their own AShM's (anti-ship missiles). Destroyers are so expensive to build and operate that only the most powerful modern navies operate them period (10-11 countries as of now I think). Frigates, however, are by far more universal as multirole platforms and are the mainstay of most navies. IRL they tend to take on sub-hunting duties more often (not a thing in Halo), but in general they do the everyday things, patrols, stuff like that. The Covenant are in many was similar, but also different. That's because they're also based on the way modern Earth navies are... but they're the Russians. The Russian navy, because they always assumed they'd be operating under enemy aerial superiority (because of the number of aircraft NATO could field at sea), they focused on building powerful cruiser types of ships, the most powerful being the Kirov-class, in Russian designation a Heavy Guided Missile Cruiser, but commonly referred to in the west as 'battlecruisers.' There were also cruiser-carrier hybrids, such as the Kiev-class. They weren't true carriers like most western carriers, but rather a carrier mixed with a heavily-armed cruiser. Thus, these are somewhat similar to Covenant carriers and cruisers, the carriers being very much focused on anti-ship combat and 'personally' defending themselves as well as operating fighter craft, while the cruisers are very powerful ships formations can be based around, or made up of. For destroyers and frigates, they follow similar lines to a western navy. That's what I tend to see reflected by the UNSC and Covenant fleets when I look at them. Space versions of modern day navies, as opposed to other universes where combat is focused around single-types of large ships, such as the empire's homogeneity in using mostly Star Destroyers, and the Republic doing a similar thing with Venators, other stuff like Mass Effect where you have combat focused around large 'dreadnoughts,' etc.
The thing which you over look about the UNSC (the UEG is the government btw) Carriers is that the Command vessels would be a Punic Class which had 2 SMACs so were more like Battlestars as far as doctrine would be concerned. Also all the fighters could carry antiship munitions like nukes too so it was the most bang for their buck.
For the Cov the CCS and CAS sre only two ships but are very versitle. They can do anti-munition/fighter, anticapship, and support bombardments. The vessels are multirole to the extreme and thats only the two ships that were really discussed. (ships like the ORS which is a steath capable BFG or the various light cruisers and corvettes) In the end the Cov has ships for the roles but with their tech base large but not massive is better, relativly speaking.
The SA also has some issues with their structuring. They primarily use lasers as PD and yet they place the smallest least heat sink capable ships as their screens. A lighter cruiser base for PD/Escort would have given them more longevity in any fight. Plus the over reliance on Dreads due to the fave a torp cruiser/frigate could mission kill if not destroy one using tacftl to get in and out quick.
The UNSC did have heavier class ships and carriers, but they were all wiped out pretty early into the Human-Cov war because they were large targets, slow, and un-shielded. Even with the advancements post-war, the UNSC probably just got used to fighting with smaller craft and stuffed more firepower into each ship. Besides, the Infinity design line is a self-contained fleet with housing for 6 frigates, multiple strike-craft launch bays, and more firepower than 3 ODPs. The only other ship that comes close to the multi-role function of the Infinity is the Executor SSD with ability house standard Star Destroyers and fighter wings, however it sourly lacks in maneuverability and serious weapon upgrades.
+Saptarshi Chandra Only heretics/traitors like you would only say they're "crap" because you're on the receiving end of the weapons like lances or macrocannons...
They look fucking hideous, everything about warhammer is just badly designed and ugly. Even the space marines look like fucking childrens action figures.
As opposed to being super-generic, I'd rather go with somewhat impractical. That's only in regards to some things, though. Space Marine armor is actually really well-designed. It offers a lot of protection. The newer models are even better. Very few gaps, most of the kinks are worked out, and all without sacrificing mobility. You should also consider the fact that Space Marines do no function the same way as, say Spartans. Space Marines are tanks. Spartans are more like traditional special forces. Space Marines are designed to essentially function as normal soldiers, but way more powerful.
The UNSC also was know to deploy Short Sword dedicated bombers, and Saber class interceptors. Also in halo a "Super carrier" such as the CSO and the Jericho class are super capital class war platforms heavily out gunning all other classes in the halo universe. The UNSC and the Covenant also used modular mission platforms, if a ship needed more equipment, it would be retrofitted, same for firepower. As for naval doctrine, it wasn't so much "focusing" on numbers as it was requiring many more ships than could be built of larger classes, so they focused on a wolf pack artillery platform of many small vessels who could flank and screen, as well as support ground operations over many star systems rapidly, remember it takes the UNSC months to go any considerable distance and weeks for an average engagement deployment. The strategy of multi role ships is by far a better tactic than focused ships in a stellar government. When you need to focus on 800+ star sytems and your navy is let's say 1000 strong you can't cover your whole empire equally, forcing many ships to do many jobs also increasing the benefit of a great number of frigates and corvettes. Heavily crew and resource intensive cruisers and above become fanciful shows of force until actually needed. Add to that the UNSC focus of AI allowing all ships in a battlegroup to share combat data and telemetry, makes smaller ships magnitudes more effective than they otherwise would be.
The Covenant Navy would crush, due to sheer size of there Navy, and how lethal each individual is, another factor is that the Covenant armed themselves with any technology the could salvage from the Forerunners, and the Forerunner empire could easily crush all for factions Navy's. Also if the Covenant got to use ships like Long Night of Solace, or mobile stations like Unyielding Hierophant, those two alone would cause massive devastation to the opponents Fleets.
Ugh, my own personal bias makes me hate the Mass Effect fleet. I thought the Covenant fleet would take the top spot due to their clear power advantage over the other factions. I'd love to see a Warhammer 40k fleet (Imperium) in one of these comparisons next.
The Hiigararn Navy from the Homeworld Video game series might be worth a look next time your in the neighborhood for new franchises to analyze. I always thought they did a pretty decent job of portraying cool (albeit fictional) space combat.
Question? How are you defining dreadnought here? You give the System Alliance dreadnoughts and penalize the UNSC for not have them but the UNSC has dreadnoughts, they just don't call them that. UNSC cruisers are every bit (probably much more so really) the heavy hitter that a SA dreadnought is. And they have way more of them. The UNSC equivalent to the SA cruiser is the destroyer. A mid weight more maneuverable hitter. Think what would happen if a UNSC and SA fleet met? Would the SA look as the UNSC and go "oh they have no dreadnoughts" because the UNSC calls them cruisers? No they'd shit their pants when a single UNSC fleet had more dreadnoughts than the entire SA.
Couple of notes on the Halo Universe: firstly, the UNSC Carriers were far more general purpose flagships, such as the Punic class, which was the second most powerful human ship behind Infinity. Beyond that, the Marathon class Heavy Cruiser And CCS class Battlecruiser are comparable to a star destroyer and are really Capital ships more than standard cruisers in role and power
I love the fact that you are expanding this, but I think it is best to keep each video within one universe. I don't see the point of comparing two halo actions to a star wars and mass effect faction. I'd rather see a bunch of halo factions, or WH40K factions, etc. I just think that makes more sense. But if you have a reason why these particular factions were compared, I would love to hear it. Having a dialogue is the best way to improve on both sides.
REAL SUGGESTIONS A. UNSC Infinity v. 2x CAS Class Carriers & 1x CSO Class Supercarrier B. UNSC Forward Unto Dawn & UNSC Infinity v. 3x CAS Class Carriers C. UNSC Forward Unto Dawn, UNSC Infinity, & UNSC Pillar of Autumn v. 3x CAS Class Carriers & 1x CSO Class Supercarriers D. UNSC Forward Unto Dawn & UNSC Infinity, UNSC Savannah, & UNSC Pillar of Autumn v. 4x CAS Class Carriers & 1x CSO Class Supercarriers E. UNSC Forward Unto Dawn & UNSC Infinity, UNSC Savannah, & UNSC Pillar of Autumn v. 3x CAS Class Carriers & 2x CSO Class Supercarriers
It might take a while to get through all match ups but anyways here's my answer for the first one: Infinity by itself is at a big disadvantage. The only weapons that can take out such monstrous Covenant warships are its 4 super Mac guns and its mini Mac guns (somewhat). A single super Mac, in a direct hit, would at least shatter a fully shielded CAS in half. It's got a shit ton of archer missiles and nukes but many can easily be shot down by lasers. The Covenant carriers have energy projectors have a large firing arc and can shoot a target 100,000 km away in an instant and several plasma torpedos that have excellent tracking abilities. Even if the infinity has time to deploy all 10 frigates, the infinity MUST have the Covenant ships directly in front of it to have any chance to destroy these carriers, and it must also fire first. Although the frigates are also shielded, they are fodder to the carriers and are largely irrelevant in the fight. The only way for the infinity to win is to out manoeuvre the carriers somehow (likely by surprise attack), and one shot each CAS and probably 1-2 shot the CSO without getting destroyed by plasma in the process. I think this would have to be an absolute miracle to happen this way. In most situations, I see the infinity taking out one CAS, maybe two, before it gets stomped by the remaining CSO or other carriers. Infinity loses 8/10
Re: Covenant Fleet distribution Like the Empire in IV-VI, there's more to the fleet than what we see on screen. In Halo Fleet Battles, we see several other ships that back up the fleet and really increase their diversity.
Unless the demand is crazy, this will be the last in this series for a few days. You can watch all episodes here: Factions Compared: ua-cam.com/play/PLPcRSJDFb1lmxDHjXMIEqQ_D_2EWBV9Lv.html
EckhartsLadder first reply
EckhartsLadder So you added all the other SciFi but not WH40k? Wow
Thunderbolt starfury from Babylon 5 vs the from Halo reach.
Do one on heavy ground vehicles!
EckhartsLadder Could you add in the Imperial Navy from Warhammer 40K? If you need help with that you can ask Arch Warhammer, he knows a lot about the universe
Interesting note regarding Mass Effect and Systems Alliance, Carriers were actually a human invention, none of the Citadel races used them, Humans were first as their way to go around the limits Council put on dreadnoughts :)
It's almost like a dreadnought (similar size) without the guns but with more hangars compared to ships used by other races in the Milky Way :)
Sidewinder that's quite true. The carriers were also their loophole. Carriers are as big, If not bigger than dreadnoughts. And cruisers are only a few hundred meters shorter than a dreadnought
i think it was 7 for non turians
Each race had different limits, with the Council members being allowed the most, according to in-game Codex and ME wiki, in 2183 so that's during ME1 Turians had 37, Asari 21, Salarians 16 and Humans had 6 with 7th in construction. 2 years later in 2185 Turians added 2 more to their fleet, Asari lost one, Salarians still had 16 and Humans built 2 with another one being finished in 2186. That same year Volus had just completed their first and only dreadnought :)
That actualy makes sense, considering that Turians have assumed the role o intra-galactic police :)
Edit: Here's the details on the Treaty limiting these: masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Treaty_of_Farixen
Sidewinder i like the fact that the volus only dreadnought is the strongest. Those little guys like to buy awesome things.
ArchmageTech, the Citadel had very strict laws about militarization, especially with regards to dreadnoughts. Each race had a share of the total military, and was expected to create that many ships.
Which was better? The harry potter quidich brooms vs. the empire recon troopers' bikes?
sharkfinbite oh the brooms for sure! Hahaha love it mate
But the brooms don't have guns mounted on them like the speeder bikes. *Pew pew pew! Trade off for flight and the ability to avoid crap for shooting your way through stuff by... FORCE haha
Who would win?
A military issued recon vehicle, with technology made from a vast universe and past Empires
-or-
Some magic stick made with 16 century technology
definitely the speeder bike but if you hit a tree you're fucked
MotorBoatMyGoat2
Or up against the sith. Especially scine they do anything to win. Unless your up ageist the Jedi. Then you have a chance to win
I agree with the ranking but I don’t think you should be knocking UNSC or Covenant for not having (edit) as many fighters as fighters are fairly useless in universe (the only use being able to shoot into open spots on a shield while ships are using weapons).
If you are going to knock them for that then you would need to dock points from Star Wars for having manned guns etc.
(Edit)
I’m going to explain why fighters are useless in Halo. In Halo space combat is closer to realism than most universe this means the ships are doing battle at distances far over 100,000 miles away.(cutscenes in game just like game play are not tier 1 canon) Also if you take real physics into account why would you ever use a fighter over a bunch of missiles? Missiles will be faster more accurate better at evading and you can have way more of them and way larger ones if you don’t also have to spend to have a fighter carry them. This leads to fighters having only a few roles: 1 they work as mobile point defense platforms shooting down missiles or other fighters 2 they can fire into gaps in the shield that are created when main ships weapons fire but this is rare as they will likely get shot down by point defenses. (You actually see this in Halo 2 while Chief is doing his free fall the CAS uses its beam on a cruiser which means it has no shields in that area leading to a air strike blowing open the path for chief.)
Basically fighters are worse versions of missiles with their only redeeming quality being as mobile gun platforms.
Edited so my meaning is clearer
a fighter could still provide a CAS role for ground forces
Ryan Sellers yes but they put far less emphasis on them because of in universe rules so their limitations shouldn’t be a downside.
Fighters are not useless. Look at the rebel fleet and the reapers . They destroy everything with fighters.
dreman999 he’s not saying they are useless. Fighters still have a use in orbital defense and support of ground forces, but in the halo universe fighters do not dictate naval battles. They do not have the weapons to really damage capital ships and survive against the effective point Defense Systems halo ships have. So in the halo universe fighters are useless in fighting NAVAL battles. Knocking them for only having 2 Multirole types is (like the other fine gentleman said) like knocking Star Wars for using manned guns
And the AI in UNSC ships was not taken into account
Totally agreed. I love the militaries of the Systems Alliance and UNSC. Very sensible, adaptable, and pragmatic forces.
Both universe represents the apex of human achievements and tenacity, adaptability and strength.
As a fan of Halo, I respect a lot the System Alliance.
They look two sides of a mirror.
I would guess that the covenant and UNSC get a bit of an advantage, assuming this is following along lines of best composition rather than raw power. Thanks to things like the fleet battles tabletop games, those factions have a very diverse array of generalist and specialist craft.
Delta E27 He can added this lame as Factions besides The UNSC but not the Imperium of mans Navy's from WH40k
your assertion that the lack of "dreadnought" type ships in UNSC battlegroups is a weakness is something i find incorrect for 2 reasons.
1 the weapons of UNSC ships are spine mounted so in order to fire at a target you need to point the entire ship at it. a larger ship would make this more difficult and the resources required to build it would mean less other ships in the fleet which would limit the fleets ability to target multiple foes.
2 UNSC carriers are not like todays carriers. UNSC command carriers are armed to the teeth and there huge size and thick hull makes them incredibly durable. why build a dreadnought when you can build a carrier that fills the same role plus carry strike craft.
Also in modern naval warfare battleships are pretty much useless
I wouldn't say battleships would be useless if you had naval combat. They would, however, be inefficient. And the reasoning would be the same as with Halo. Why build a battleship (which costs A LOT by the way) that while extremely devastating in certain situations, could easily be replaced by 8 or 10 if not more frigates/destroyers. Not to mention smaller ships also provide target saturation. You might lose 5 frigates/destroyers and it would still not be as bad as losing a battleship.
+Kuduka -Dakata- Battleships today aren't used because of the inefficiency of making them. It's the fact that the guns are just useless the gun range is very short when compared to a missile. Why make a battleship that pretty much has to get into melee range when you can put missiles on a destroyer that can fire at targets it can't see, correct its course and carry the same or more bomb load? Battleships would be more useful in space because line of sight wouldn't matter and it could travel an infinite distance.
Well looks like my comment didn't post so here we go again.
Battleships as I wrote can be extremely devastating, particularly if they get in close range of other ships. Modern warships aren't equiped to deal with warships as heavily armored as a battleship. They would be almost completely useless. You need bunker buster missiles to penetrate the armor of a WWII battleship.
The reason we don't build battleships is because it wouldn't justify the costs. A carrier is cheaper to build and can project force in a much bigger range.
Modern warfare focuses on stealth and shooting the enemy before they can see you as far as naval warfare is concerned. A battleship simply doesn't fit modern combat doctrine.
If you park a battleship off the coast of NY for example with sufficient anti sub cover you will pretty much blockade the place with absolutely no way for anyone break through.
Standard anti-ship missiles would be useless, low calliber guns would be useless. Any modern warship that gets in range would be blown up in seconds.
There are uses just noone to actually use it against so no point in building one.
+Kuduka -Dakata- you do know that the punic class super carriers were basically battleships they had two super macs and were very effective at fighting covenant ships the other carriers were for carrying fighters
Which Faction has the best Memes?
IoM's Heresyposting never gets old.
heresyposting is heretic. Whoops. i placed my cup on the exterminatus button number Q.
a good inquisitorial chair can launch an exterminatus by just sitting
Galactic Republic and CIS because of prequel memes.
We'll bang ok.
IoM
I'm still stunned at how good some of Roosterteeth's animation is for Red Vs Blue, that picture of Mother of Invention for the UNSC looks awesome
I’m Commander Shepard, and this is my favourite series on the internet.
UNSC all the way...I wish they made a movie for the big screens
They did. It was shit.
Duncan McOkiner they need the backing of a big studio and good director. If a halo movie was made by micheal bay I’d riot
Who though? Hollywood is more filled with hack writers than sex predators and as the last few months have revealed, that is saying something.
Duncan McOkiner lol true. The only directing that I can say I’ve 100% enjoyed has been through third party services like Netflix and HBO
But they've been putting out some naff shit too. For every House of Cards and Breaking Bad there's a Coin Heist or a Bright or a Coin Heist or a Dear White People or a Coin Heist or a Mascots or a Coin Heist. It's not really fair to judge Netflix by it's best exclusively because as movies like Coin Heist prove, they are more than capable of making some damn bad flops.
Variables other than ships and firepower are what makes it so interesting to compare factions haha!
Arashmickey A systems alliance dreadnought can take several shops from a reaper.
And com paired to shit from pretty much any other scifi universe the reapers are pansies
Also dreads can't take shots from reapers they get destroyed in 1 shot (427kilotons)
unsc high kilotons - teratons (mid end single digit megatons)
Covenant low megatons- teratons (mid end double to triple didgit megatons)
Forerunners teratons- exotons (based on the lowest possible calcs from the keyship)
Wh40k kilotons- petatons (not counting necrons)(mid end gigatons)
Starwars sub kilogram- low kilotons and manually aimed guns (Disney cannon) (mid end single diget kilotons)
Yes the reapers are pansies that would die to almost anyone else
edit: credit to SB for the calcs
He’s very functionalist in his approach to combat analysis.
Conor Kelly I've noticed
I'm not sure why relying on a certain class of ship is a bad thing to ya, considering said ships are powerful as hell and usually are accompanied by carriers and frigates anyways, not to mention you can't knock a navy because they don't rely on fighters as much
Because relying on a certain class of ship meant you have a failed military doctrine. No weapon is invincible, but a doctrine can be invincible.
@RaPtorteAm No doctrine is invincible, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Mobile warfare is said to be the best kind of warfare, except it doesn't work against guerrilla warfare.
Massing all your ships around one big ship isn't fool proof as you can just pick off the smaller ships or focus down on the heavy ship and finish off the smaller vessels. It is not a good idea to base your doctrine completely on relying on one heavy ship to deal the damage while the smaller ships just serve to support it, there should be multiple heavy ships in a fleet, in case one of them gets destroyed. Still not as flawed as having only one ship with just some fighters and no bombers in a fleet.
Judge: thank you, defense council. Prosecution are you ready to present your case?
Prosecution: yes your honour. If it pleases the court I would like to present the cylon navy of the second war as exhibit A
I personally think the covenant has the best navy, I love there designs, and if they have the potential to be the strongest sci-fi faction if they could have the necessary territory and recourses and could use the huragock, they could even get even more advanced than what they actually are.
We're not talking about advancements tho, the video is about Naval doctrines and tactics. The Covenant are advanced, yes. But their doctrine, tactics, and strategies are primitive even compared to UNSC. The Covenant relies on the idea of "Bigger fleets, Bigger ships, bigger win" which led to them being constantly outmaneuvered by UNSC. The UNSC infinity might also be big, but it's very flexible, it's a battleship, but also a carrier, massive transport, a factory.
What about Warhammer 40K, Stargate, Star Trek, Babylon 5, FarScape, and Spaceballs.
:)
You can't have a contest with spaceballs, other fraction will not have a chance
Spaceballs too OP
What about space battleship Yamato 2199
Who the hell are the space balls
SPACEBALLS!? Oh shit, there goes the planet.
Red vs Blue snuck its way in
firebat341 you saw the mother of invention as well XD
crew of the normandy I AM CABOOSE AND I HATE TAXES (ALSO BABIES)
thats texas! XD
In my apinion I think that the Covenant should have been placed higher on the list, because while the Covenant didn't have a huge variety of ships, the ships that they did have were pretty strong, and also the Covenant did have more than just CCS class cruisers, carriers, and super carriers.
For example in Halo Wars 1 in one of the mission cut scenes you could see the UNSC Spirit of Fire go up against a Covenant Destroy, and both ships ended up colliding, and while the Spirit of Fire took considerable damage to the side of it's hull, the Covenant destroyer didn't take much damage from the collision, showing that it had a considerably strong hull and shields, and also in Halo Reach in the mission "Long Night of Solace" you could see the UNSC Savana, a Paris class frigate, go up against a Covenant SDV class heavy corvette, and get destroyed without the corvette taking much damage.
Eckhart. Something I think you missed with the UNSC fleet is that building a massive front line battleship would be almost pointless against an enemy (The Covenant) that could potentially destroy it in a single shot. Using several smaller ships using the same amount of resources makes far more sense so that it makes it far more difficult for an enemy to engage.
Now this is just looking at the UNSC during the war with the Covenant while their vessels were not using shields. Looking at post war UNSC while using shields, we do see an increase in the size and power of the UNSC vessels, like the Infinity. Considering the fleet composition for the purpose it was needed for, the UNSC could possibly take the top spot from the Systems Alliance.
Just thought this was a very important point that you seemed to have missed in your video but your content is amazing. I found you about a month ago but have already watched almost everything on your channel.
Keep up the good work!
Fun fact, the image used of the unsc ship at 4:10 is actually of the freelancer ship mother of invention from the halo based series, Red vs Blue and that is a scene from it.
The one thing that’s different than all is that the Covenant actually had ships with literal artificial hunting reserves on them. When the Covenant wasn’t at war they could go into the hunting reserves to hone their battle skills and also get fresh food. None of the other factions have things like this. In my opinion this would be a huge advantage for the Covenant.
You knock the UNSC for not having very many/any extremely large ships, but spreading your resources over a larger number of ships means that the UNSC has more survivability than any star wars faction as the number of targets massively increases and with there smaller size they are more difficult targets making them superior to the massive targets that other factions have.
(you also have to keep in mind that even though they don't have any large cannon type weapons they still most likely have just as much power as one of those but spread among the fleet increasing the individual power of each ship which is the safer option as losing one ship doesn't lose you the battle)
this is exactly why we don’t allow eck to compare the galactic empire to the unsc
I've been working on a sci-fi universe where my protagonist faction has a good navy and a bad navy at the same time. The major ship types they have are frigates, which are used to screen starfighters and cover the battleships and carriers from enemy fire; destroyers, which are fast, nimble ships that are used to harass, assault, or even destroy enemy capital ships; carriers, which, for this faction, have colossal capacities, with some rare few carrying as many as 1000 vehicles; and battleships, the mainline capital ships used for assault, both against orbital positions and against planets. Additionally, the carriers do have heavy guns, so they can sit in the back and blast away at the enemy ships from behind the safety of the wall of frigates while deploying their starfighters. Based on your previous analyses, this would be a fairly good setup. Where this all falls short is with the starfighters. This faction has air/space superiority fighters, multirole fighters, interceptors, ground attackers, and support gunships, but they have no dedicated bombers. While that is an effective setup for the starfighters in most roles, it forces the capital ships to pick up the slack against enemy capital ships and fortified ground positions, the latter of which can hinder the army's progression due to the lack of support.
I would say the UNSC, they are quite organized and realistic, but I might be kinda bias ...... and you know AI for management and strategy
Until the Navy squandered half its budget on the Infinity , but yeah, the UNSC followed its doctrine as much as possible with the number and technology they had at hand
Wouldn't the Infinity be more of a statement though? Like fuck off we have a big ship now.
The Infinity was the UNSC's Death Star. But unlike the Death Star or the Empire, UNSC did not have close to the technology or resource needed to build or maintain such a ship.
Plus they were at war. An active, destructive war. And instead of using its budgets in production of more ships, better ships. ONI basically took its budget and build a luxury lifeboat incase they lose Earth.
RaPtorteAm not to mention Infinity took two decades to build. Earth could of fallen even before the Infinity was completed.
RaPtorteAm However in the end, it pays off. Being literally the only ship that can penetrate the Mantles Approach and representing the might of Humanity's best scientific engineering. Though it was vastly costly, it was a big factor in assisting Chief in stopping the Didact from possibly composing the entire Human species.
United Federation of Planets, Klingon Empire, Cardassion Union, and Romulan Empire. A navy comparison.
I dont know if you are that into Star Trek but i think it would be cool to see some Trek stuff on the channel.
And on the topic of Star Trek. Galactic Verses. ( United Star Trek galaxy, (Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta Quadrant.) Vs Star Wars, Say maybe during the clone wars.
Love your content, keep it up.
Why First Order? They were, while quite mighty in terms of raw firepower, in the end ended up losing The Supremacy and 8 Resurgence class Battleships for just The Raddus going into hyperspace and slamming into The Supremacy. Pretty good trade for the resistance if only counting raw tonnage
Thunderbolt starfury from Babylon 5 vs the Sabre from Halo reach.
The Oracle damn
The Oracle wow what a dick move didt even see it yet
Barry Bend the sabre
Resurgent-class Star Destroyer vs Lucrehulk-class Droid Control ship - 6th attempt
No point lucrehulk will get crushed it has 24 quad tubolaser the resurgent has 1500 turbolasers the 1500 droid fighters would be a pain in the butt thought... however unlike imperial ships the resurgent has a dedicated point defense system and shielded star fighters while droid fighters are unshielded the resurgent might get damaged but not enough to be destroyed and the lecrehulk will get vapourised by the resurgent' s overwhelming firepower
Supe dorito vs. super Donut
Nothing I love more than going on UA-cam after a long day and seeing a brand new video by you. @eckhartsladder
The Geth vs Cylons
Tyren Kupper Geth would win
Mildly Menacing because legion is to cute 🤗
Have ya seen a geth drednaught? It's a fucking monster
Tyren Kupper he should add ROBOTECH it's a sci fi western but has great fleet deapth and lore
Tyren Kupper
I dont think Cylons prioritized their ships for combat, Geth did.
Thanks for doing my idea and keep up the good work😀
I would like a mass effect lore video as well as a comparison of some of the special forces units (like Spartans, odst, Republic Commandos, ARC Troopers,...ect)
I appreciate all the work that goes into these!!! =)
Can you do who had the best generals/admirals? (for the factions in this video or the original 4)
I would give my vote to the Arbiter
Steel Badger Captain Keyes, Admiral Thrawn, Arbiter and I guess Akbar
Captain Crary I wouldn't say Keyes, replace him with Admiral Cole (If you don't know who he is, I would suggest reading some fluff surrounding him, awesome man with great stories), especially since Cole consistently won outnumbered and outgunned
Edit: Replace the Arbiter with the legendary 'Jar Wattinree, as much as I love the Arbiter, I think 'Jar Wattinree outclasses him.
+Captain Crary He said generals not admirals.
I would vote for either: the arbiter, shipmaster, atriox (yes I’m counting him, sue me), admiral thrawn, and lord hood
covenant were considered the killers in space, usually destroying the unsc, they had bigger ships ,better weapons, and were ruled ship by ship (or captain by captain) while unsc followed a command structure that could easily be broken.
also, covenant ships had there bridges in the center of the ship offering protection instead of at the front of unsc
the covenant are the better fleet
You said that carrier don't have the same type of firepower even tho the punic class carriers have a supper mac
That's just because the UNSC was obsessed with dishing out MAC rounds during the Covenant War.
But that's excusable because UNSC fighters during the war was less useful than, but Carriers should focus on bringing fighters/troops into battle.
UNSC ships suffer from many design problems with other sci-fi spaceships: It's a battlestar, warships that carry a big gun, carry fighters, and carry troops. Instead of different variations with different specialized functions.
Technically UNSC heavy carriers are Battleships with hangars. :D
Also if the hangars were removed to make it a true battleship, what would do you fill that space up with ? (obviously armor where necessary)
They don't have shields (during the war) so you can't really put more power generation to boost that.
Even if you put more power generation to boost MAC recharge rate, UNSC fleet combat is all about firing the MACs in large volleys so the ship would just be sitting there waiting for everyone else to recharge their MACs.
Battleships would be extremely effective in BSG though.
Owen Yin
Yes, I agree that the UNSC tried to make the best of their fleet with such limited resource and underwhelming technology.
The problem is the lack of specialization between certain warship decrease the overall effectiveness of the Fleet. If your frigate is carrying scorpions, that means you're not carrying enough Archer missiles; if your Carrier is armed with a MAC that means you're not supplying enough Longswords; if your mega-super-expensive warship has a random biodome for no reason whatsoever that means you're not being efficient.
There is quite a bit of specialisation in the UNSC fleet actually.
You have frigates which double as troop transports. Then you have destroyers which are purely for ship to ship combat. Also UNSC ships carry a ton of missiles.
If you check the older frigate designs, that bottom section under the engines is actually the part dedicated to troops.
You have to remember that Infinity might be expected to be on missions for many months if not years. (when it was originally being built it was supposed to be their last hope to ensure humanity's survival if Earth fell) Having a place for people to go and just forget about all the fighting and just relax if even for a little bit is important. You need the crew in top shape after all. Especially with the enemies regular troops have to face. Pretty much all covenant species have some phisical trait thats superior to regular humans. Hell, even the grunts are actually pretty tough phisically, and not all that short.
Not to mention the way battles were fought during the war, MAC guns were a lot more important than fighters. And the heavy carriers were literally battleships with hangars. They were built with the idea that they'd have to fight capital ships.
Kuduka -Dakata-
Problem is UNSC frigates are mass produced in numbers so they could be effectively used against larger and more advance Covenant counterparts.
If you frigate doctrine is to dish out damage you don't need space for surface combat vehicles.
A Battlestar is a trope of warships that does everything. Almost every UNSC warship is a Battlestar. Paris-class frigates should be the standard for UNSC frigates, not the exception. It's the same reason why modern day DDG does not carry humvees, or why CVNs does not have vertical launch systems. By investing in unnecessary space not suited for the ship, you're efficiently(and ironically) building a warship-of-none. Now frigates can't effectively bring many troops into surface because it can only carry so many troops, and it can't combat ships because they're evacuating few troops they've to send to suicide.
If the UNSC wanted MACs they should build them on their cruisers or their destroyers(if they're effective at all). If you're going to build a starship is that used to carry fighters, then make it carry fighters. A Punic-class carrier own could carry 24 fighters if they would take out that MAC they could effectively bring more Longswords. And if longswords are not as effective, then don't build those carriers at all.
EckhartsLadder: Come for the Star Wars, stay for the Halo
I believe you put the covenant in the wrong place because this reason. A universal ship is much better than a specialized ship because if you have a ship that can fulfill any role than that is a much better designed ship. The CCS battlecrusier can act as a brawler, a destroyer, a carrier and a supply ship that can carry enough cargo to fund a entire campaign. So if this ship can fulfil these roles on it's own you don't need other ships, the CCS battlecrusier is much different to the star destroyer in the fact that it can be multi role and is a better designed. So I do believe the covenant should be higher up the scale do to the fact that the ship was a multi roled ship and could serve in a better tactical sense. But this is my opinion and I still liked the vid so keep up this seiers, really like.
The idea is that you have to make tradeoffs for a multirole design that you don't have to for specialized design. For instance, a ship having a carrier role will almost always be weaker and more vulnerable than one without fighters, making it a poorer battleship.
+Scythe Seven, so that means if I destroy all of your ships that are your acting fleet tenders and carriers I effectively destroy your fighter and bomber core and starve your fleet of supplies all right man you stick with that and I'll go attack you with my covie fleets of multipurpose vessels XD, oh not to mention the empire from star wars has those specialized ships you know the isd that has literally no point defense and next to no fighter support now that vs my republic ship with tons of fighters and point defense your on XD.
The whole point of specialized carriers is that they are vulnerable, but they stay protected behind the ISD-type ships, which are in turn protected by anti-fighter corvettes. Besides, specialized doesn't have to mean completely lacking flexibility. Taking away the ISD-I's pd weapons for more turbolasers was the Empire's dumbest possible mistakes. Multi role vessels are only necessary if the fleet has to be able to handle anything but doesn't expect superior enemy forces. With proper intelligence and planning, a specialized fleet will mop the floor with a generalist one any day. The role of a carrier is to deploy fighters and GTFO. Letting it be destroyed is incompetence.
+Scythe Seven, except that you don't let it get destroyed the enemy focuses attacks on it and what if I remove your corvettes by focusing on them then I have free range for bombers and fighters on your ships.
The point is that the corvettes won't be destroyed by the enemy fighters because they are specifically designed to take on enemy fighters and bombers. A multirole fleet can't carry as many fighters, output as much firepower, or take as much punishment as a specialized fleet outside a surprise attack because the generalist ships are masters of none. There's a reason humans become scientists, farmers, and entrepreneurs, but not renaissance men, and that's because the scope of human knowledge is greater than any one person. The same is true with spaceships-the scope of design knowledge is greater than any one. Any ship equipped to carry fighters and bombers has necessarily given itself a massive weak point to accommodate them. Any space taken up by armor can't be used for hangars or weapons it other subsystems. A fleet of generalist ships denies the absolute fact that every design choice is a trade-off.
2:18 Better resource management? IDK about you, but the frigates the UNSC uses were the bulk of their navy, and they are usually depicted as disposable...but then again they did use them in way to stall for time against the Covenant
Do the small arms of each Star Wars faction compared, and how well they complement each other (or not).
Congrats on 100k subs mate, by far the most entertaining and informative science fiction channel on UA-cam.
You literally took the most underdeveloped major faction in Star Wars simply to cash in on the Last Jedi hype. EA and Disney would approve.
I never knew I wanted these videos before but now I love them. Keep up with the awesome videos.
O you know when someone makes something like this, there will be a ton of fanboys screaming at each other about which universes navy is better. I’m for sure this will happen
Then you have idiots who just blatantly ignore the facts presented to them by fans of other universes and don’t provide any backing sources. Ahhhhhhh that’s how most debates go for sci-fi stuff
Fanboys can't argue when all you have to do is mention WH40k then it all stops for a reason
RYSE Kixhex well I hope someone picks up that phone. Cause you fucking called it XD
I also forgot. Then there’s the people who beg eckharts to do their match ups all the time like a little brother begging his dad to let him buy cod even though he’s not old enough. God eckharts fan base is half cancer, half good
RYSE Kixhex
Imo been a Fan or Fanboy is fine as long you are NOT biased and NOT totally ignore facts. ....But yeah your right that is a huge issue
First of all, the UNSC does have Saber (Dedicated Space Superiority Fighter), and Short-Sword (Dedicated Bombers)
Next... pretty much most ships that are "Battleship size" in a space environment are going to have a certain amount of carrier capability...
+Rev BladeZ, the Sabre saw widespread use during the war until the manufacturing plants were destroyed by covies.
"What I said earlier, I take it back. Navy got its butt kicked"
"Hey, remember when I told you to shut up... Consider that a standing order"
"Do you know what happened to the captain? Oh I get it, permission to speak...smartarse".
DeltaWolf1000 Rookie-“..................”
"Now's one of those times it pays to be the strong, quite type"
Never ceases to amaze me the creativity that goes into this channel!
I must say this.... Japan had Yamato-class - biggest guns, heavy hitting etc. etc. and.... it sunk being killed by... aircraft carrier bombers....
Dreadnought is not a solution for UNSC because it would cost a lot more than bunch of Paris-class or even Carriers... It would be a waste of resources to create ship of this class and loose it to Covenant - just to remind you: Covenant had more numerous fleet and technical advantage. Infinity was planned as escape and colonization ship which would be sent into far region of Galaxy to save last of humanity - it was not a warship. So lack of dreadnoughts is to be understood - UNSC couldn't afford to throw away resources when loosing war with Covenant.
As for Covenant, they had heavy battleships/carriers like CSO and loss of each one in battle was substantial loss to their fleets.
The UNSC didn't have capital ships because they would get torn apart by the covenant. They would just be massive targets. They focused on smaller ships because they were faster, more maneuverable, and harder to hit, which was pretty much their only way to get an edge on the larger, more well armed covenant warships.
Covenant, and the damn supercarrier
avelino nunez ortega supercarrier best carrier
#ripJorge #ripNobleTeam #RememberReach
Unicron vs Deathstar (your choice of first or second) - Transformers VS Star Wars
Unicron VS Five Reapers - Transformers VS Mass Effect
Astartes Assault Squad VS Brutes - Warhammer 40K VS Halo
Imperial Guard Stormtroopers VS Death Troopers - Warhammer 40K VS Halo
A good video, but we see more of a look at your preferences on ship design and military doctrine than anything else. Granted if I really wanted to dispute this I'd make my own video. Besides, you're much more into Halo and Mass Effect than me so I can trust you to know what you're talking about. That being said, here's hoping you consider some of these suggested VS videos, I gotta get around to joining the discord server at some point.
Just gonna note that the SA may be good - incredible, even - in terms of in-universe design but lone escort-type ships from anyone else on this list could solo them. 32 kilotons per shot is considered devastating firepower for Mass Effect, and the 450 kilotons of a capital Reaper’s gun an instant kill, and Disney Star Wars deals in tens of megatons, the UNSC and Covenant in tens of gigatons, and EU Star Wars in hundreds of gigatons. Don’t let Mass Effect fanboys foool you.
Eckhart: The first order navy doesn't really impress me.
Palpatine: *laughs in death star ships*
Halo Valiant Class Superheavy Cruiser vs Star Wars MC 75 Cruiser
TheRed Hawk Why not mc80c?
mainly because we don't have really any information on it, we don't even really know how many turbolasers it has.
TheRed Hawk the MC 75 will win
I think you misunderstood the UNSC's navy. See, according to the Halo literature I've read (I.E. Fall of Reach) Cruisers basically are the battleship/dreadnought ship of the UNSC navy. Their firepower is, to my understanding, roughly similar to that of a ME dreadnought, and they had always been the primary heavy-hitters of the UNSC navy. That was one of the things that really stood out to me when I was reading that stuff. I had expected such a role to be played by ships that weren't referred to as cruisers, but alas, the cruisers are it.
At least, according to the old lore. God knows what 343 decided to do.
The first order is just a bunch of empire wannabes, they are a terrible faction, also, you have gained 2000 followers since yesterday, great job!!!
This guy added them before the Imperium of man Navy's from WH40k which is fucking bs
ikr, still a great channel though
They aren't "empire wannabes" they are a direct continuation of the Empire you fool.
This is a very one sided view the first order is very powerful if you think about it they managed to build star killer base, the supremacy, hundreds or resurgent class star destroyers, amass a powerful ground force with their limited resources while factions like the unsc with so much resources and of that size can't even build a good all rounded ship with SHIELDS EVEN STAR WAS FIGHTERS HAVE SHIELDS UNSC SHIPS DIDNT HAVE SHIELDS TILL LATER IN THE WAR YOU FOOL
To be fair this channel is more biased towards Halo
Your video are looking really clean in the production department!
(Star wars) droids vs Prometheans (Halo)
The only way droids would win is through sheer numbers
It depends on how you look at it. Prometheans from Halo 4 were always a few knights with a large number of crawlers that made up the bulk of their forces with the watchers as support. In Halo 5 there are less knights and more soldiers with the occasional officer who's not really an officer but more of an upgraded soldier.
For Star Wars it gets tricky because you need to look at the faction. if it's the CIS then you have sheer numbers of B1 battle droids that are made to overwhelm the opponent. A B2 battle droid is much more effective with better weapons and armor but still not that smart. Droidekas have shields and heavy firepower which will be effective when properly used. There are also BX commando droids who are smarter, nimbler, faster, stronger and have vibroswords as well. We also can't forget that the real commanders were tactical droids who were incredibly smart. Magnaguards were also very resilient and even able to stand up against a jedi.
But there are more different factions such as the sith empire and the eternal empire who used droids as well.
If it's CIS droids vs Prometheans then in my opinion it mostly depends on the situation. If it's the Prometheans vs standard battle droids in let's say a close combat situation then they win. But if they're fighting the droids in a more open space and a mix of these droids then the CIS wins. Prometheans have quality but battle droids have quantity with the rare droid who actually has some quality.
Sheer numbers is what the droids have. Over a quintillion of them at their height in the EU.
@@jaredevans8263 really? I dont think so. Promthean would win over droid
What about the Harvesters from Independence Day? It would probably be every factions dream to have moon-sized warships with impenetrable energy shielding and countless other defenses at their fingertips.
Fantastic video. Could you consider doing a Spartan Vs multiple Jedi or sith or maybe death troopers
Ahm the jedi can use the force to crush the spartan into a tin can ...
Unless the spartan ambushes them, or just kills them with a sniper rifle... Jedi can't stop bullets,"slugthrowers" as they are called in SW are slower than modern firearms. Generation Tech did a great video explaining how to kill Jedi/Sith. Of the recommended ways using a slugthrower was rather high.
thanks i never knew that
+General Hux, the force would't affect the spartan though lol.
General Hux If HK 47 can kill Jedi so can a Spartan
If you look at the halo: mythos you will see that the UNSC did have the Vindication class battleships, though I will say that battleships and dreadnoughts play a much smaller part in the UNSC navy than most starwars navies
Do the navy's of warhammer 40k
My Navy would just kill almost everything in sci-fi.
No, only half of every civilization in the Mid-tier Sci-Fi category.
Your own ships' best weapons, excluding Exterminatus, are only rated low petaton level.
There is a race whose single basic warship can destroy star systems every seconds, and they are still in Mid-tier.
Everything in main stream sci-fi, yes. Except for a lot of Star Wars stuff.
Yep, Star War Legend is still below 40k.
Star Wars EU is nothing compared to 40k...
Man you forgot the mention shields the covernent were known to have almost unbeatable overshields on their crusiers, and the had pinpoint perfect slip space travel, they are almost unbeatable unless they were blown up from the inside.
Can you do some Stargate VS such as The Forerunners(Halo) vs The Ancients (Stargate). I think it would be cool to see two "precursors" going to war.
If you want "precursors" have The Precursors (Halo) go against The Ancients.
Jedi Master yes!!! Please. I'm glad someone else thought stargate!!
Indeed
no XD the forerunner and precursors could easily wipe the floor with any stargate faction as stargate isn't focused that much on the "we have more op bullshit than you" and the precursors from halo are stated to be older than the current universe and said to have come to this universe to create anything they wanted.
Thyre Radim
Replicators defeat Flood, Asgard hack Sentinels, Wraith defeat UNSC, Goauld Empire and Tauri defeat Covenant, Alterans and Asuran Replicators defeat Forerunners and Precursors
I love this series and have a suggestion for an army comparison video. I would love to see a comparison between the Imperial Guard (Cadian regiments), The UNSC Marine Corp/Army, The Clone Army (even though you already did them), and The Global Defense Initiative (GDI from C&C, specifically Tiberium Wars). Would appreciate some feedback to this idea. ^^
The First Order is easily the best navy of these nations. The designs of their ships are a brilliant combination of the Venator and the Imperial Star Destroyers that I commanded. They are a... efficient... navy that also has a competent officer corps. Unlike fools like Constantine that commanded in the Empire.
Grand Admiral Thrawn an*
Give him a break, Basic's not his first language.
I'm surprised Thrawn as someone with your background would be impressed by mere rebels, surely u cannot think the FOs naval structure to be flawless
i would disagree, though the resurgent class battlecruisers are impressive by themselves, they lack the numbers nor the actual quality of fighters to be competent in the field of battle, they are also slow, and since they lack the necessary support ships, they still through the weakness of the Imperial class star destroyer, which is fighters. It also doesn't help that the bridge, despite being reinforced, will do nothing to prevent a dedicated penetration missile to punch through and explode within the ship. Though it makes up for this weakness through redundent command centers.
Though this comparison isn't about the ship types itself, but the Navys, and i would argue that the UNSC has the far greater navy than the System's alliance. Simply put the Carriers are too few, despite their specialization in fighters, are inferior to such fighters such as the Broadswords and longswords in anything but speed. I also dislike the fact that the system's alliance ships rely too much on element zero, which makes powering and producing these ships far more costly. As this video fails to mention, the cost of Element zero goes up exponentially when building bigger and bigger ships, it is a structural weakness within mass effect ships. This is also why that they have such low quality hulls, because they depend too much upon their kinetic barriers, which to be honest, is significantly underpowered against any other kinetic based weapons. Their kinetic barriers would be next to useless against anything with energy based weapons such as the Empire or the UNSC Super carrier.
I also dislike the fact that THis video @Eckhartsladder fails to actually also mention the battleships such as the Vindicator light battleship and the Strident Class heavy frigates. I also dislike the fact that it mislabels the UNSC infinity as a battlecruiser rather than a Supercarrier such as the Punic.
Good work I prefer the first order because there more advanced tech
As long as we are only talking about fleet structure I totally agree with this assessment. When you bring tech into the equation I would put the covenent into the top spot with the systems alliance and the UNSC each falling one spot down.
here's an idea.... you have seen the movie "scout's guide to the zombie apocalypse "?... well how about scout's guide to a flood infestation?........ i mean how to arm ourselves in the best possible way to prevent us getting all tentacles growing out of our ears.... sounds good?
Is a larger ship a good thing? It makes it more complicated, requires more work to maintain, has a larger surface area to hit. I think you would want a ship that can be small as possible while still maintaining fire power
U know how powerful the ODPs are. right? Now imagine if the UNSC strapped some thrusters on them. That's why a battleship is a good thing
Larger ships in halo usually work when shields are concerned given that the bigger the ship means the bigger the reactor and the more shield emitters it can have.
which franchise had the best captain/leader of the ship and forces? Star Trek vs. Star Wars. Kirk vs. Anakin
Picard, obviously.
Star wars with thrawn, picard ain't shit compared.
Yeah thrawn obviously and how can you even compared Star Trek with Star Wars I mean Star Trek was a rip off of Star Wars
Rulingmoss 55 Picard has never been bested by a lesser adversary. Something Thrawn can't say.
All of you are saying Picard and thrawn. That is way off topic... but this gives a new idea. Picard vs. Thrawn.
I've got an idea for a Versus video. Covenant ground forces from Halo Vs a Demonic incursion from Doom!
do one with the stargate races I think it would be very instresting
The UNSC has a bomber, in the shortsword. It is only carried on carriers and assault ships. Longswords and sabers are carried on carriers, cruisers, and battleships and are multi-role fighters as you noted.
"makes most sense"
Fucking finally.
Battleships don't make a lot of sense, bigger ships are bigger targets, and more of a liability.
And the covenants self sustained nature doesn't make alot of sense in the lore being that they have really good ftl- resupply should be easier.
It's still good to not necessarily need tight supply lines and to be able to operate far from home. This is a priority for the US Navy today.
You are right, but i don't think it's in any way practical to bring those support ships into combat as in an equal playing field they are as much as liability as they are a strength- you don't need to fight covenant cruisers if you can destroy their support craft or separate the support and auxiliary craft from the main battle group. Given that the fleet is designed with their existence in mind, you could thus constrict and control the actions of your opponent by crippling their support craft.
Eckhart, I would say that, at least in Halo's case, a *lot* of the way the different factions structure their fleet has to do with how we do it today, at sea in the late Cold War to current era.
Why? First look goes to the UNSC. Pre-Covenant, there were not battleships/battlecruisers, and only one 'type' of cruiser (note; type of ship, not class of ship). They had carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and frigates as their main ships. Cruisers are an exceedingly rare type. That's true today as well, although that has more to due with the fact cruisers are very redundant in modern (western) navies ever since France & Italy stopped messing around with aviation cruisers (it's a long story).
Regardless, the UNSC is roughly analogous to a late Cold War to current western navy (US, UK, France, Italy).
Outside of independent ventures made up of Destroyers and Frigates, a carrier or carriers are typically the core of any type of naval battlegroup. Sometimes, though not always, they come with the ever-rare cruisers (most USN CBG/CSG's have one), and then the rest is made up by destroyers and frigates.
Carriers are always the center of the battlegroup, they do little themselves but bring to bear the offensive/defensive power brought by their strike aircraft. Pretty similar from the UNSC to you modern NATO navies.
Cruisers are rare because they're the largest, most powerful type of ship for surface combat. While for most navies cruisers are dead (their AA/Surface action role became redundant to that of DDG's), the USN is still hesitant to scrap all of the (really) old Ticonderoga-class cruisers because they have unparalleled firepower compared to anything else in the USN at the moment (just as cruisers in the UNSC have more raw firepower than any other ship type). In the case of the USN, it's because the Tico's have 128 VLS tubes versus the 90-96 VLS tubes on their modern Burke-class destroyers.
Although there are no submarines to worry about in the Halo universe, Destroyers and Frigates still have somewhat similar roles to real life. Destroyers in Halo are the most focused on actually doing heavy fighting; they're best equipped for taking on other warships, and are larger and more powerful than Frigates. Frigates are more multirole platforms, smaller, cheaper, less deadly, but able to carry out patrols and operate fighters, they are more versatile and useful for the everyday missions of the UNSC.
There's a similar divide in real life. The USN is hard to use in this case because they don't use frigates anymore, they just have their destroyers do everything... but as a general rule for most navies, destroyers are almost like capital ships in the way that Frigates might end up escorting them. Destroyers are geared towards front-line combat. They're bigger than Frigates and more heavily armed, packing more VLS tubes and defensive measures. They're typical multirole (unless you're the UK, in which case the Type 45's are purely AAW focused), but generally are geared towards AAW and ASu; taking down enemy aircraft and missiles, and then dishing out the damage to the enemy fleet with their own AShM's (anti-ship missiles). Destroyers are so expensive to build and operate that only the most powerful modern navies operate them period (10-11 countries as of now I think).
Frigates, however, are by far more universal as multirole platforms and are the mainstay of most navies. IRL they tend to take on sub-hunting duties more often (not a thing in Halo), but in general they do the everyday things, patrols, stuff like that.
The Covenant are in many was similar, but also different. That's because they're also based on the way modern Earth navies are... but they're the Russians.
The Russian navy, because they always assumed they'd be operating under enemy aerial superiority (because of the number of aircraft NATO could field at sea), they focused on building powerful cruiser types of ships, the most powerful being the Kirov-class, in Russian designation a Heavy Guided Missile Cruiser, but commonly referred to in the west as 'battlecruisers.' There were also cruiser-carrier hybrids, such as the Kiev-class. They weren't true carriers like most western carriers, but rather a carrier mixed with a heavily-armed cruiser.
Thus, these are somewhat similar to Covenant carriers and cruisers, the carriers being very much focused on anti-ship combat and 'personally' defending themselves as well as operating fighter craft, while the cruisers are very powerful ships formations can be based around, or made up of.
For destroyers and frigates, they follow similar lines to a western navy.
That's what I tend to see reflected by the UNSC and Covenant fleets when I look at them. Space versions of modern day navies, as opposed to other universes where combat is focused around single-types of large ships, such as the empire's homogeneity in using mostly Star Destroyers, and the Republic doing a similar thing with Venators, other stuff like Mass Effect where you have combat focused around large 'dreadnoughts,' etc.
That's the symbol for the storm covenant from halo 4 not the true covenant
No... it's the symbol of the Covenant Empire and has been long before the great schism.
Fallout Man oh really lol. I thought the one shown in halo wars is the right one
The thing which you over look about the UNSC (the UEG is the government btw) Carriers is that the Command vessels would be a Punic Class which had 2 SMACs so were more like Battlestars as far as doctrine would be concerned. Also all the fighters could carry antiship munitions like nukes too so it was the most bang for their buck.
For the Cov the CCS and CAS sre only two ships but are very versitle. They can do anti-munition/fighter, anticapship, and support bombardments. The vessels are multirole to the extreme and thats only the two ships that were really discussed. (ships like the ORS which is a steath capable BFG or the various light cruisers and corvettes) In the end the Cov has ships for the roles but with their tech base large but not massive is better, relativly speaking.
The SA also has some issues with their structuring. They primarily use lasers as PD and yet they place the smallest least heat sink capable ships as their screens. A lighter cruiser base for PD/Escort would have given them more longevity in any fight. Plus the over reliance on Dreads due to the fave a torp cruiser/frigate could mission kill if not destroy one using tacftl to get in and out quick.
The FO just fails due to lack of PD or antifighter vessels commonly seen.
Alliance Kilimanjaro class Dreadnought vs Marathon class cruiser form halo.
Simon Peterson bye bye Kilimanjaro.
The Kilimanjaro gets blown to bits
depends on if the kilimanjaro survives the first shot if it does it can blow the marathon to bits with a few hits
ask homann well the Kilimanjaro is shielded. So it should. Probably. Plus it has a huge range and firerate advantage.
true
The UNSC specialty wasn't swarming with numbers. Also I think you underestimate the vast size of the covenant fleet.
You should have done the empire instead of the firstorder
The UNSC did have heavier class ships and carriers, but they were all wiped out pretty early into the Human-Cov war because they were large targets, slow, and un-shielded. Even with the advancements post-war, the UNSC probably just got used to fighting with smaller craft and stuffed more firepower into each ship. Besides, the Infinity design line is a self-contained fleet with housing for 6 frigates, multiple strike-craft launch bays, and more firepower than 3 ODPs.
The only other ship that comes close to the multi-role function of the Infinity is the Executor SSD with ability house standard Star Destroyers and fighter wings, however it sourly lacks in maneuverability and serious weapon upgrades.
it's covenant
The next video should be how, ship-for-ship, the UNSC, First Order/Empire, Systems Alliance, and Imperium of Man compare!
The Imperium of Man, obviously!
I mean look at whose marvelous Gothic space cathedrals!!
LOOK AT THEM!!!!!!
The Silver Hat yeah they look like crap.
+Saptarshi Chandra Only heretics/traitors like you would only say they're "crap" because you're on the receiving end of the weapons like lances or macrocannons...
The Tau are better.
They look fucking hideous, everything about warhammer is just badly designed and ugly. Even the space marines look like fucking childrens action figures.
As opposed to being super-generic, I'd rather go with somewhat impractical. That's only in regards to some things, though. Space Marine armor is actually really well-designed. It offers a lot of protection. The newer models are even better. Very few gaps, most of the kinks are worked out, and all without sacrificing mobility.
You should also consider the fact that Space Marines do no function the same way as, say Spartans. Space Marines are tanks. Spartans are more like traditional special forces. Space Marines are designed to essentially function as normal soldiers, but way more powerful.
Idea: Squad battle between units from UNSC, Covenant, First Order, and System Alliance. The factions involved can be changed as seen fit.
Long life to the systems alliance
The UNSC also was know to deploy Short Sword dedicated bombers, and Saber class interceptors. Also in halo a "Super carrier" such as the CSO and the Jericho class are super capital class war platforms heavily out gunning all other classes in the halo universe. The UNSC and the Covenant also used modular mission platforms, if a ship needed more equipment, it would be retrofitted, same for firepower. As for naval doctrine, it wasn't so much "focusing" on numbers as it was requiring many more ships than could be built of larger classes, so they focused on a wolf pack artillery platform of many small vessels who could flank and screen, as well as support ground operations over many star systems rapidly, remember it takes the UNSC months to go any considerable distance and weeks for an average engagement deployment. The strategy of multi role ships is by far a better tactic than focused ships in a stellar government. When you need to focus on 800+ star sytems and your navy is let's say 1000 strong you can't cover your whole empire equally, forcing many ships to do many jobs also increasing the benefit of a great number of frigates and corvettes. Heavily crew and resource intensive cruisers and above become fanciful shows of force until actually needed. Add to that the UNSC focus of AI allowing all ships in a battlegroup to share combat data and telemetry, makes smaller ships magnitudes more effective than they otherwise would be.
The Covenant Navy would crush, due to sheer size of there Navy, and how lethal each individual is, another factor is that the Covenant armed themselves with any technology the could salvage from the Forerunners, and the Forerunner empire could easily crush all for factions Navy's. Also if the Covenant got to use ships like Long Night of Solace, or mobile stations like Unyielding Hierophant, those two alone would cause massive devastation to the opponents Fleets.
Not sure if this has been asked before, but why don't you cover the Dead Space universe? Necromorphs vs Flood would be an awesome video.
Ugh, my own personal bias makes me hate the Mass Effect fleet. I thought the Covenant fleet would take the top spot due to their clear power advantage over the other factions. I'd love to see a Warhammer 40k fleet (Imperium) in one of these comparisons next.
This is not about who has the most powerful navy or who would win in a fight, but who had the best in terms of composition and tactics
@@jshsnipa aka the covenant is the best
@@binbows2258 perhaps
The Hiigararn Navy from the Homeworld Video game series might be worth a look next time your in the neighborhood for new franchises to analyze. I always thought they did a pretty decent job of portraying cool (albeit fictional) space combat.
Question? How are you defining dreadnought here? You give the System Alliance dreadnoughts and penalize the UNSC for not have them but the UNSC has dreadnoughts, they just don't call them that. UNSC cruisers are every bit (probably much more so really) the heavy hitter that a SA dreadnought is. And they have way more of them. The UNSC equivalent to the SA cruiser is the destroyer. A mid weight more maneuverable hitter.
Think what would happen if a UNSC and SA fleet met? Would the SA look as the UNSC and go "oh they have no dreadnoughts" because the UNSC calls them cruisers? No they'd shit their pants when a single UNSC fleet had more dreadnoughts than the entire SA.
Couple of notes on the Halo Universe: firstly, the UNSC Carriers were far more general purpose flagships, such as the Punic class, which was the second most powerful human ship behind Infinity. Beyond that, the Marathon class Heavy Cruiser And CCS class Battlecruiser are comparable to a star destroyer and are really Capital ships more than standard cruisers in role and power
I love the fact that you are expanding this, but I think it is best to keep each video within one universe. I don't see the point of comparing two halo actions to a star wars and mass effect faction. I'd rather see a bunch of halo factions, or WH40K factions, etc. I just think that makes more sense.
But if you have a reason why these particular factions were compared, I would love to hear it. Having a dialogue is the best way to improve on both sides.
Long time watcher first time subscriber just wanted to say I love your videos
The covenant should probably be better than the UNSC since they kinda rolled over them naval wise in Halo.
Pinhead Larry by virtue of superior tech rather than outthinking, the Covenant mostly just ram headfirst into the UNSC defenses.
@@45bullsharkUnless the covenant fleet was being lead by Thel Vadamee.
Eckhartsladder, could you go over how well each of the ground forces were armed? Weapons, equipment, support, etc.
REAL SUGGESTIONS
A. UNSC Infinity v. 2x CAS Class Carriers & 1x CSO Class Supercarrier
B. UNSC Forward Unto Dawn & UNSC Infinity v. 3x CAS Class Carriers
C. UNSC Forward Unto Dawn, UNSC Infinity, & UNSC Pillar of Autumn v. 3x CAS Class Carriers & 1x CSO Class Supercarriers
D. UNSC Forward Unto Dawn & UNSC Infinity, UNSC Savannah, & UNSC Pillar of Autumn v. 4x CAS Class Carriers & 1x CSO Class
Supercarriers
E. UNSC Forward Unto Dawn & UNSC Infinity, UNSC Savannah, & UNSC Pillar of Autumn v. 3x CAS Class Carriers & 2x CSO Class
Supercarriers
Nefarious Nathan are these serious match ups or is this a joke like half of the comments here?
It is serious Jared, I've been requesting these for +3 days so far
Ok but first of all in each match up does the infinity get its 10 strident frigates in its hangar?
It does, but I weighed that against the power of the Covenant and decided it was fair or slightly better than their navy
It might take a while to get through all match ups but anyways here's my answer for the first one:
Infinity by itself is at a big disadvantage. The only weapons that can take out such monstrous Covenant warships are its 4 super Mac guns and its mini Mac guns (somewhat). A single super Mac, in a direct hit, would at least shatter a fully shielded CAS in half. It's got a shit ton of archer missiles and nukes but many can easily be shot down by lasers. The Covenant carriers have energy projectors have a large firing arc and can shoot a target 100,000 km away in an instant and several plasma torpedos that have excellent tracking abilities. Even if the infinity has time to deploy all 10 frigates, the infinity MUST have the Covenant ships directly in front of it to have any chance to destroy these carriers, and it must also fire first. Although the frigates are also shielded, they are fodder to the carriers and are largely irrelevant in the fight.
The only way for the infinity to win is to out manoeuvre the carriers somehow (likely by surprise attack), and one shot each CAS and probably 1-2 shot the CSO without getting destroyed by plasma in the process. I think this would have to be an absolute miracle to happen this way. In most situations, I see the infinity taking out one CAS, maybe two, before it gets stomped by the remaining CSO or other carriers.
Infinity loses 8/10
Re: Covenant Fleet distribution
Like the Empire in IV-VI, there's more to the fleet than what we see on screen. In Halo Fleet Battles, we see several other ships that back up the fleet and really increase their diversity.
Imperial Fleet 40k could hold all of these fucking fleets down and not give them the courtesy of a reach around.
The 40k universe makes the least amanout of sense and is the most bull crap out of all the factions
Awesome! Really loved this one